3 ms·

I understand the point you're making, but I see issues with some of the details: i) in order for the factory to remain competitive domestically and internationa

I understand the point you're making, but I see issues with some of the details: i) in order for the factory to remain competitive domestically and internationally, it will need to reduce prices and increase production, otherwise someone else will use these robots to put them out of business (thus profits increase, but not by the amount saved by salaries), ii) if the government taxed this factory more, they would no longer be competitive internationally; further, this innovation would be disincentivized, iii) even if the government reclaimed all of the additional profits in taxes and gave them to the workers, there wouldn't be enough to go around (see first point), iv) perhaps this would accomplish the goal of narrowing the wealth divide, but it only does so by destroying wealth (factory owner ends up with less, workers end up with less). I really don't believe this strategy will accomplish any of these objectives in the way you intend. I don't mean to pick on your example or opinion; apologies if I come off as harsh.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zem 14y ago
not at all - i'm certainly not capable of developing a new economic policy in the hacker news comment boxes :) i was merely pointing out via an example why the up-front ability of some people to own the means of production inevitably means that wealth will pool in their hands, and that something needs to be done at a government level to redistribute that wealth. the bugbear of international competition simply means that everyone involved gets caught up in a race to the bottom; the fact is that this would simply be a progressive tax on leveraged ways of making money. there's always an incentive to make more at a lower cost and effort, whether some of that more is taxed or not. i would go as far as to say that it's a basic human drive. the sticking point is, once you have a setup so productive that you do not need other people to contribute to it, what happens to the displaced people? the current model seems geared towards "deserving" the means to acquire necessities and luxuries, by contributing something to the system, whether the system needs them to or not. however that leads to very strong inequities where the rich get richer and the poor lead lives of ever-increasing desperation, including the need to perform menial jobs at a "loss" (i.e. getting less for them than the human cost of doing them). i also do not believe my scheme would destroy wealth, for the following reason: $100 would let a poor person eat better, a middle-class person buy a better cellphone, and a rich person tip his blackjack dealer. my contention is that the $100 is therefore worth strictly more in the hands of the poor person, and that "destroying wealth" is an illusion caused by the fallacy that $100 is $100 regardless.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

zem 14y ago

not at all - i'm certainly not capable of developing a new economic policy in the hacker news comment boxes :) i was merely pointing out via an example why the up-front ability of some people to own the means of production inevitably means that wealth will pool in their hands, and that something needs to be done at a government level to redistribute that wealth. the bugbear of international competition simply means that everyone involved gets caught up in a race to the bottom; the fact is that this would simply be a progressive tax on leveraged ways of making money. there's always an incentive to make more at a lower cost and effort, whether some of that more is taxed or not. i would go as far as to say that it's a basic human drive. the sticking point is, once you have a setup so productive that you do not need other people to contribute to it, what happens to the displaced people? the current model seems geared towards "deserving" the means to acquire necessities and luxuries, by contributing something to the system, whether the system needs them to or not. however that leads to very strong inequities where the rich get richer and the poor lead lives of ever-increasing desperation, including the need to perform menial jobs at a "loss" (i.e. getting less for them than the human cost of doing them). i also do not believe my scheme would destroy wealth, for the following reason: $100 would let a poor person eat better, a middle-class person buy a better cellphone, and a rich person tip his blackjack dealer. my contention is that the $100 is therefore worth strictly more in the hands of the poor person, and that "destroying wealth" is an illusion caused by the fallacy that $100 is $100 regardless.